Grand strategy

• 1. Defining Grand Strategy

  ›

  In 1967, British military historian B. H. Liddell Hart published a definition that would shape decades of strategic thought. He described grand strategy as the role to coordinate and direct all resources of a nation toward attaining a political object defined by fundamental policy. This concept expanded beyond traditional military means to include diplomatic, financial, economic, and informational tools. It examined internal forces alongside external ones, considering conscription policies and resource mobilization. The scope included peacetime periods as well as wartime operations. A country's political leadership typically directed this process with input from senior military officials. Development could extend across many years or even multiple generations. Thinkers differed on whether the goal should promote peace or advance state security. Some emphasized fostering the people's willing spirit as important as concrete power forms. Others focused on regulating power distribution between services and industry. The horizon of strategy was bounded by war, but grand strategy looked beyond conflict to subsequent peace.

• 2. Historical Evolution Of Concepts

  ›

  By the sixth century, Byzantine Emperor Leo VI distinguished between strategy and tactics in his work Taktika. He separated the skills of a general defending the homeland from the science of organizing armies. Prior to the French Revolution, most thinkers wrote on military science rather than grand strategy. The term first emerged in France during the 19th century when Jacques Antoine Hippolyte Comte de Guibert wrote General Essay on Tactics. His work distinguished between tactics and grand tactics, which scholars today refer to as grand strategy. Emperor Leo's Taktika was translated into French and German shortly thereafter. Carl von Clausewitz proposed that politics and war were intrinsically linked in an influential work. He defined strategy as the use of engagements for the object of the war. Antoine-Henri Jomini argued different types of wars required distinct approaches. Some contemporaries disputed links between politics and war, arguing politics ceased to be important once war began. Narrow definitions similar to Clausewitz remained commonplace throughout the 19th century. By the early 20th century, writers like B. H. Liddell Hart expanded strategy to include distribution and application of military means to achieve policy objectives. Grand strategy should operate for decades without ceasing at war's end or beginning at its start.

• 3. Classical Case Studies In Practice

  ›

  Thucydides recorded one of the earliest writings on grand strategy in his History of the Peloponnesian War. The account detailed conflicts between the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta and the Delian League led by Athens. From the era of Hadrian, Roman emperors employed a military strategy called preclusive security. They established linear barriers of perimeter defense around the Empire with legions stationed in great fortresses. These fortresses existed along the perimeter often accompanied by actual walls like Hadrian's Wall. Due to perceived impenetrability, Emperors kept no central reserve army. The Roman system of roads allowed soldiers to move from one frontier to another with relative ease. Supplies could move just as easily across the road system as soldiers did. If legions could not win through combat skill or superior numbers, they could outlast invaders who did not think in terms of millions of bushels of wheat. Emperor Constantine moved legions from frontiers to one consolidated roving army to save money and protect wealthier citizens within cities. This grand strategy had costly effects according to some ancient sources by weakening frontier defenses. People living near frontiers began looking to barbarians for protection after Roman armies departed. This argument originated in writings of Eunapius and was stated by 5th century AD historian Zosimus.

• 4. Post Cold War Strategic Debates

  ›

  The end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union removed the focal point of U.S. strategy containing the Soviet Union. A major debate emerged about future direction of American foreign policy. In a 1997 article Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross identified four major grand strategic alternatives. Neo-isolationism advocated removing the United States from active participation in international politics to maintain national security. Proponents believed nuclear weapons assured political sovereignty while proliferation prevented competing hegemons on Eurasian landmass. Implementation would involve less focus on nuclear proliferation withdrawal from NATO and major cuts to military presence abroad. Selective engagement advocated intervening only if regions directly affected security and prosperity. Europe Asia and Middle East mattered most as they contained great powers or primary oil sources. Cooperative security drew upon liberalism and realism proposing peace effectively indivisible. It stressed democratic governance growth and use of international institutions to overcome security dilemmas. Primacy advocated pursuing ultimate hegemony dominating the international system economically politically and militarily. Daniel Drezner outlined three arguments that military preeminence generated positive economic externalities including geoeconomic favoritism and geopolitical favoritism. He noted empirical evidence supported third argument though precise causal mechanisms remained disputed.

• 5. Contemporary Schools Of Thought

  ›

  Barry Posen director of Security Studies Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology argued activist U.S. foreign policy was undisciplined expensive and bloody strategy doing more harm than good. He proposed abandoning hegemonic strategy replacing it with one of restraint. This translated into jettisoning quest shaping world satisfactory to U.S. values advancing vital national security interests instead. Large troop contingents in unprecedentedly peaceful regions like Europe would be significantly downsized incentivizing NATO members providing more for own security. John Ikenberry of Princeton University and Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth both of Dartmouth College pushed back on selective engagement thesis. They argued American engagement not as bad as Posen made out to be. Advocates overstate costs current grand strategy understate benefits. Benefits of deep engagement were legion reducing competition key regions checking potential rivals maintaining open world economy giving Washington leverage economic negotiations securing cooperation combating global threats. Ted Carpenter senior fellow at Cato Institute believed proponents suffered from light-switch model where only two positions existed on and off. Selective engagement sat between primacy and isolationism given growing multipolarity and American fiscal precariousness should taken seriously. Offshore balancing advocated refraining significant involvement security affairs overseas except preventing state establishing hegemony three key strategic regions: Europe Northeast Asia Persian Gulf.